ulisses_phoenix Reviews

Easy (2003)

A character study...

[9/10 · 24 September 2020]

When I decided to watch this film, I was afraid it was going to be some kind of lowbrow comedy. It was anything but that. Although there is some comedy and lots of romance, it's not a RomCom. It doesn't follow the RomCom formula at all. It's a well-produced, character-driven drama focused on the main character, Jamie (played by Marguerite Moreau). Although there are many supporting characters in this film, they are not really fully developed as their own characters and are merely there as vehicles to advance the development and evolution of the main character. The supporting characters are developed, to be sure, but only as needed to advance the story. If fact, I think there are only a few minutes of screen time when those supporting characters are on their own, otherwise they are interacting somehow with Jamie. I'm sure that this was intentional on the part of the screenwriter in order to keep the focus on the main story (the evolution of the main character) and to avoid having the film look like some kind of ensemble comedy.

The dialogue was well written and replete with emotion and subtlety, much of which I'm sure was beyond my ability to understand. And the acting was world-class, not a single bad performance. Many of the scenes in this drama, I imagine, were difficult for the players, but they executed flawlessly. The score and cinematography were unobtrusive and perfectly suited to the mood and tone of the scenes they supported. There were a few hand-held shots but they were rare and completely appropriate to the scenes.

With regard to race, this film was diverse in the composition of the cast and there was absolutely no derision or bias at all. In fact, race was irrelevant in this film. The main character (who is a white woman) had an intimate, platonic relationship with her black neighbor, Martin (played by D.B. Woodside) and there was interracial romance in the film, too. Also, one of Jamie's love interests, John (played by Naveen Andrews) is of southern Indian ethnicity. This film is one of the most inclusive, unbiased films I've ever seen. Well done!

Overall, a well-produced, original story with great acting and no racial bias. This film is easily an 8/10, but I'm giving it a 9/10 because it was so inclusive and unbiased.

Advisory: drug use by the protagonist, suicide, infidelity.

Rating 9/10; submitted 2020/09/23, 22:50 EDT

Faster Than Light (2017)

This is what science fiction should be...

[10/10 · 15 September 2020]

Finally, a scifi film that's actually based on speculative science! This well-produced film shows what science fiction is actually about: science, technology, discovery. So many scifi films coming out of Hollywood these days are just war movies or gory horror films disguised as scifi. In many of them you could just replace the phasers with M-16s and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them and a 20th-century pro-war propaganda film.

How refreshing it was to see a film about hope, aspiration, and discovery; not dystopia, apocalypse, and violence. The technology depicted in this film seems to be based on what may be possible using known physics. Of course there were some aspects that were there just to make it more visually appealing, like the streamlined spaceship (vehicles in the vacuum of space that manipulate spacetime for displacement don't need to be aerodynamic), or the bright lights coming from the back of the spacecraft (high-energy radiation is not in the visible spectrum). But these types of filmmaking choices are almost necessary to create a visual and audio experience that's compelling and exciting.

The filmmakers appeared to make the right choices when it came to the allocation of scarce production resources. They hired competent actors, they focused on creating high-quality CGI and sound, and they didn't waste a lot of money on props and sets that might have detracted from the quality of the production (e.g., they didn't try to fabricate a space helmet for the astronaut, which probably would have looked goofy anyway -- helmets in low-budget scifi films always look goofy). The result was a high-quality product. (Although at one point I found myself calling out at the screen, "Put you're helmet on you fool!" -- but he didn't have one. Oh well.)

I really like how this film was inclusive on race. The small cast in this short film included a black woman in the top position at the flight center (played by Karin Konoval), a Hispanic/Middle Eastern (Moor) woman as the astronaut's partner (played by Aliyah O'Brien), and an Asian woman TV reporter (played by Mana Mansour). And there was no racial derision at all in this film, which often happens in Hollywood films. I also like the fact that most of the people were of mixed race which is very realistic because a hundred years from now most people will be of mixed race in an equitable society. (Although in a post-Hamilton entertainment industry a person of any race can play any character: past, present or future.) And judging by the surnames in the credit roll, the crew was equally diverse.

I would have made a different choice on gender, though. I would have had a female astronaut and had her husband anxiously waiting at home for her safe return. But I like to break stereotypes...

Story-wise, the film limited itself to a snapshot of a much bigger story. At just 15 minutes, we get about 10% of that bigger story. I hope the filmmakers get the funding (and latitude) to produce an entire feature or serial about this story. It would be quite entertaining.

Overall, a well-produced film that puts big-studio films to shame. This would easily get a 9/10 rating but because it was so inclusive and equitable on race, it gets a 10.

Advisory: None. Suitable for all audiences.

Rating 10/10; submitted 2020/9/15 10:00 EDT

Love the One You're With (2014 TV Movie)

Three sisters navigate their relationships and careers...

[6/10 · 13 September 2020]

While I was seeking out projects featuring D.B. Woodside, I found this little-known TV film which was produced by independent RLJ Entertainment for its Urban Movie Channel (UMC) (before RLJ was acquired by AMC). UMC includes original TV series and movies and when I saw that this was a TV movie, I thought it was going to be a made-for-TV movie (shot on film with a low budget for a TV audience). However, when the movie began, it was immediately apparent from the image lag on the video that this movie was shot using old-style TV video. It was also shot live using a 3 or 4 camera setup on a single set, like a soap opera. Now I remember why I stopped watching scripted TV.

These types of productions have a unique personality. The acting is done in stage-acting style and this production appeared to have a live audience. There weren't multiple, separate takes for each shot -- it was just continuously shot and acted like a stage play. This can be demanding on the players because they need to remember and recall all of their lines and stage directions flawlessly for the entire scene. The result is a much lower quality performance and this movie was no exception in that regard. The advantage of shooting this way is much lower production costs and no continuity errors, and this movie had none that I could see. This film was shot entirely on that one set with what looked like stock footage between the acts for transition and establishing shots.

The story follows the lives of the three main characters, the sisters, as they deal with their relationships and careers, often having difficult choices to make in the process. The tension comes from the choices the characters must make among career options and sometimes having to choose between their dream job or their romantic partner. The characters are strongly defined, but the dialogue is written in a blunt, direct style common to TV scripts. In this film, the players would simply directly convey the message the writer wanted to deliver. Exposition was likewise very direct rather than coming across more naturally -- typical of TV scripts.

With regard to race, the entire cast was played by black actors and it appears that all of the above-the-line folks were also black people and of course, being made for UMC, the expected audience was black viewers. There didn't appear to be any derision or negative depictions or stereotypes in the movie, which often happens in major studio films. When the content came close to touching on such issues, the characters would directly and expressly discuss the topic to quench any possible negative interpretations. Most of the characters were of the suburban, middle-to-upper income demographic with generally high socioeconomic occupations and education. The characters used correct grammar and pronunciation for the most part, but as time went on and the players became more relaxed in their roles they occasionally slipped up and used "axe" instead of "ask" or dropped the "are" after a pronoun, but that was rare and I'm sure the intent of the writer/director was to avoid substandard grammar/pronunciation in the dialogue.

Overall, if you like stories about the problems that women often encounter in their lives and careers; and you don't really care about things like cinematography, tight dialogue or flawless acting then this TV-quality production might be for you. It's not my thing so I would have likely given it a rating of 4 or 5, but because it contained no racially derisive content, I'm giving it rating of 6.

Advisories: none; suitable for all audiences.

Rating: 6/10; submitted 9/12/20, 22:25 EDT

Dangerous Game (1993)

Lousy movie

[4/10 · 1 September 2020]

I don't like this movie because it is very depressing. And I also don't like it because it's not a happy movie. Plus there is violence and rape in this movie which is very bad. And some of the scenes are too dark to see what's going on.

Hayflick Limit (2017)

A mystery thriller with an original plot...

[6/10 · 25 August 2020]

Several mysteries develop in this film: Who is Rosie (the protagonist played by Brittany Kragerud) and where did she come from? Why is her memory so spotty and why is she being so evasive? Why was she in that illicit medical lab and what were they doing to her in there? Why are those scientists so intent on recapturing her? And who can she trust?

All of these mysteries are eventually answered at the end of the film, with an unexpected twist. (Warning: The distribution company for this film put out a synopsis of this film which was full of spoilers and which revealed all of the major plot points including the surprise ending. If you like mysteries without spoilers, don't read anything about this film before you see it! -- except this review, of course:)

Production-wise, the cinematography was very good for a low-budget, independent film. Technically the DP handled both interior and exterior scenes well; and the angles, tone and editing were supportive of the what was happening in the story. The score was good with the exception of some upbeat rock music played at the end (and the beginning) which was completely out of place. This movie was not a happy-go-lucky romp through the park. It's a suspenseful, scary thriller with suspenseful orchestrated music throughout, so rock music doesn't fit. Also, this film doesn't have a happy ending (and can't have a happy ending for reasons I can't explain without spoilers), so putting in that upbeat rock music at the end was huge blunder by the filmmakers.

One note on the editing/script -- there was one very long scene in the middle of the film showing one of the support characters, the sheriff, sitting in his car doing nothing for what seemed like an eternity. I mean the guy just sat there motionless, no cuts, no changes in camera angle at all, nothing. I thought maybe my video stream had frozen or something. I have no idea why the filmmakers did that. It didn't add anything to the story or the character. Weird.

The acting from this unknown cast was really spotty. In the beginning the performances were okay, but there were some scenes in the middle of the film that were really awful. But there were some good performances too. Tom Isenberg, playing Joe the scientist/father, really gave a great performance as a creepy psycho. Kragerud also did well for a young unknown actress. Sonya Katarina Isenberg, who had a smaller part, also did a good job for a teenager. There was another actor who also had the same last name, Patricia Isenberg, and there were lots of duplicate last names in the relatively small cast/crew, so I think maybe these independent filmmakers may have just picked some of their friends/families to help produce this film -- I'm not sure because there's not that much online about the film, producers and cast. Some of them may be associated with another independent film, "Dad's in Heaven with Nixon" (2010) which was actually a documentary about autism.

There was only one black actor in this film with a speaking part, a woman (played by Sharron Shannon) who had a small part with five or six lines and only 16 seconds of screen time. The black woman -- who was holding a baby (played by Rupert Shannon) -- was depicted in a favorable manner and had a positive interaction with one of the supporting actors. (There was a black extra -- who I believe was played by David Shannon, Jr. -- on screen for about a second or two, a child who was not really noticeable in the scene.) It was a small cast, but it would have been better if one of the main characters had been played by a black actor so that black characters had more screen time. The sheriff, Ben, is a Native American man played by Clint Hughes, who I assume is Native American himself. (Hughes gave a mostly good performance with a couple of exceptions.)

There was one other minor issue I had with the film. The dialog and character of the main protagonist was portrayed exactly as you'd expect from a young Earth woman. I think the credibility of the character and the plot would have benefited if she would have "slipped up" a couple of times and maybe used some inaccordant phases. It would have given the audience more to chew on in this mystery.

Overall, the film was well produced for an independent film and the actors did a good job for an inexperienced cast (with a few glaring exceptions). The story was original and the dialog was mostly believable. And there was no racial bias or racial derision, which often occurs in traditional Hollywood-produced films. It's worth watching if you like suspense thrillers and original mystery stories (and you can tolerate some lousy acting in spots).

Advisory: Some violence (bludgeoning) but no gory scenes.

Rating: 6/10; (submitted August 25, 2020, 5:30 p.m. EDT)

Dark Tide (2012)

Scuba-diving Jaws...

[8/10 · 15 August 2020]

Shark movies are not my thing, but I checked this out because I wanted to see what Halle Berry was up to. For a thriller shark movie, this was actually pretty well written and produced. The script uses several fairly sophisticated literary devices with an overall metaphor for the entire story. The cinematography was great. And not just the underwater shots but the whole movie was well shot. And those underwater scenes with the sharks were just spectacular. The only negative criticism I have regarding cinematography is that some of the the night scenes were too dark to see what was going on.

The dialogue was spot on -- very believable. And most of the characters were well developed with the exception of the lead, "Kate" (played by Berry). By the end of the movie we had a fully developed character, but by then the movie was over. It probably would have been better to put a little more into that character earlier on and show more evolution. But still, that's a minor criticism of an otherwise great script that included many other well-developed characters, some of whom evolve through the story themselves.

The pacing seemed erratic at times, sometimes too fast and sometimes too slow. Shark/disaster movie fans are probably more use to the typical formula pacing: slow in the beginning with tons of baby-food character development, followed by fast-paced action for most of the movie with a brief anticlimax at the end. But the unorthodox pacing of this film really didn't hurt the story that much. (Actually, this film might have benefited from a more extended anticlimax instead of, or in addition to the concluding voice-over -- but that's really just a judgment call.)

The film was equitable regarding race, with multiple supporting roles played by black actors and of course the lead by Berry. One of the black characters is killed off early in the film, limiting that player's screen time. The film includes an interracial relationship and some scenes showing affection between the couple, however, the relationship is somewhat disfunctional and there are also some very heated arguments. That relationship is the primary back story (or parallel story) in this film. Also included in the story is a subtle chemistry between two gay men in the film.

The acting in the film was world class. I don't remember a single lousy performance, even from the bit players. Very well done. And the well-written dialogue and tight editing also helped the performances. There wasn't much to the main plot (it's a shark story, after all), but there were several compelling side stories going on so that made the film more dimensional than a typical shark movie.

One cautionary note for shark movie fans -- if you're expecting some campy farce of a movie with a happy ending you may be disappointed. This is a character drama thriller. After Jaws (the grand-daddy of shark movies) which was a serious drama, came out in 1975, it's success brought about many parodies over the years and the original movie itself began to seem more comedic as it aged and society became more callous to violence, so today's viewers may be more likely to associate the genre with camp-horror than with a thriller drama.

This film also differs from Jaws in that it is much more respectful of the sharks. This is a reflection of the continuation of the natural progression from society's Teddy Roosevelt dominion-over-nature attitude to a more harmonious relationship with our fellow earthlings. (Even if they don't always reciprocate that courtesy :)

Overall, the film was well produced with an affective blend of thrills and poignancy. It had an inclusive cast without any racial derision. For that reason I'm giving it a rating of 8/10.

Advisory: graphic depictions of shark anthropophagy; textual content at >200 wpm

Rating: 8/10; (submitted August 15, 2020, 4:35 p.m. EDT)

Star Trek: What Are Little Girls Made Of? (1966) Season 1, Episode 7

Artificial consciousness, androids and a weird stalactite...

[8/10 · 13 August 2020]

Stretching the limits of the genre and of what was acceptable to TV audiences in 1966, this episode, as with other Star Trek episodes, explored human consciousness and helped inform the budding transhumanist movement that developed in the following decades. Gene Roddenberry apparently had a direct hand in the script for this one, making changes right on the set (which delayed the production somewhat but obviously improved the final product).

Airing just before Halloween in 1966, the episode has more of a horror tone to it than typical Star Trek fare, with Ted Cassidy -- recognizable to contemporary audiences as "Lurch" from 'The Addams Family' series -- playing a giant android monster.

This episode seemed to have a higher production value than other episodes. For example, William Shatner's stunt double was nearly indistinguishable from the lead actor in this one. (Other episodes had a double who bore no resemblance to Shatner even when using wide shots.) In fact, Shatner performed many of the stunts himself in this episode.

I'm not sure if the budget was bigger for this episode, but in any case I think a huge portion of that budget apparently went toward double-sided tape for Sherry Jackson's costume, which was risque for the late 60's. This episode also included a nude scene by Shatner. They actually had a censorship person on set to make sure Jackson's costume (designed by Bill Theiss) didn't reveal any side cleavage.

But somehow those censors missed the stalactite in the shape of a giant male reproductive organ that Kirk used in an attempt to bludgeon the Lurch monster android. I'm not kidding. About 35 minutes into the episode, Kirk breaks off a stalactite from the ceiling of the cave which is in the exact shape of a male reproductive organ. It's unmistakably deliberate and it's totally unnecessary to the plot and I wonder if they put that in there just to mess with the network censors, who were obviously a big pain for the producers, cast and crew.

The episode continued the tradition of killing off "redshirts" from the Enterprise's landing crews, with Kirk making a special call to the Enterprise just to ask them to beam down some guys for that purpose in the beginning of the story. (Actually, this is the first episode where the redshirts actually wore red shirts.)

There weren't a lot of black folks in this episode, which was typical of television at the time. In fact, Nichelle Nichols who played Lt. Uhura in the original Star Trek series was the first black woman to hold such a prominent role in a TV series. So, given contemporary standards, the show was progressive on race.

Overall, this is one of the better regular episodes from the original series and has held up well over time. I'm giving it a rating of 8/10.

Advisory: Gun (phaser) violence; fist fights; and a stalactite in the shape of a giant male reproductive organ used as a weapon.

Black Coffee (I) (2014)

A film that urges viewers to get 'woke' and smell the coffee...

[9/10 · 10 August 2020]

In the opening scene, a loud klaxon sounds on Robert's alarm clock as he wakes up-- there's no ambiguity about the meaning of the titular metaphor of this film. Writer/producer Mark Harris uses positive messages of self-improvement, social responsibility, and hope to prompt his audience to change in this unconventional RomCom.

It's refreshing to finally see a movie that models positive, socially constructive values instead of all the stereotypes and derision found in nearly every big-studio film with black characters. Harris uses a direct approach to deliver his message -- the characters simply say what black folks should do to improve themselves. And Harris lets us know that he is fully aware of all of the racist techniques that mainstream Hollywood producers use to deride and oppress black people: black characters depicted in lower-socioeconomic positions; stereotypical behaviors; substandard grammar and pronunciation; no eye contact; and the promotion of anti-social values. Harris directly addresses these with counter-messaging for each one. And to drive home the point, the film reverses the usual Hollywood-typical roles of black and white people -- a white guy who delivers bad news to the protagonist; a white assistant who is deferential to a black businessman; a white patron at the bookstore being exceptionally rude; and the white guy pleading with the black protagonist for help at one point. In big-studio films all of those white characters would be cast with black actors instead.

One message promoted in the film that I have a disagreement with is the idea of economic segregation. Via this story, the filmmakers argue that black folks should only buy and sell to other black folks to improve their economic condition. Now I agree that buying $500 "swoosh" sneakers made by overseas slave labor or buying expensive gold chains from your local non-black-owned jewelry store is probably not a smart idea. But the tactic promoted by this film of complete segregation, while perhaps effective in the short term is ultimately unsustainable and doesn't get society to where it needs to be. However, the ideas of entrepreneurship, self-improvement, and mutual respect presented in the film are all good.

The writing was solid and the dialog was natural and believable. And the acting was well above average. Story-wise, this film broke somewhat from the RomCom formula in a way that was innovative and actually worked. Also, the characters who play the preexisting partners of the protagonists are treated with more respect, not just as disposable foils or antagonists, but as real people who have issues and are redeemable. Hollywood producers could take a lesson from this film and be a little more willing to step out of the RomCom formula rut.

But there were some serious technical issues with the film. Some of the exterior shots were overexposed and the filmmakers failed to maintain control over ambient noise in location shots. And the audio editing was really choppy. If they couldn't pick a venue where they had control over the noise, then they should have just shot the video and then had the talent come in and re-dub the lines and mix in any required ambient sound in post (which would probably require wider framing and more reaction shots because it's a labor-intensive process to try to sync a dub for more than a second or so against a closeup). Or better yet, shoot it in-studio against a green screen (where motorcycles and helicopters can't stomp on the actors' lines) and then add in whatever location you need later in post.

Overall though, this was a well-written and well-acted film that was somewhat direct at times, but had a positive, socially responsible message. It was clear that Harris didn't want to compromise his message in this film and the result was well worth it. (However, I noticed a later project by Harris, 'No Regrets', which seemed to slip into more Hollywood-style black stereotypes with substandard grammar and anti-social behavior by the black characters.)

Even with the technical flaws, I'm giving this a rating of 9/10 because the message it delivers is so positive.

Advisory: Promotion of drug use by the protagonists.

Rating: 9/10;

Transcendence (I) (2014)

A superb introduction to transhumanism and the technological singularity...

[9/10 · 31 July 2020]

The balance between technical accuracy and what is accessible and entertaining to a mainstream audience is always a difficult tightrope to walk for filmmakers venturing into cutting-edge subjects, but the producers of 'Transcendence' seem to have achieved a substantial measure of each. For people who are just being exposed to the concepts, the film touches on all of the main ideas and provides enough baby food for the uninitiated to form a seed of understanding.

Because this film treads on a lot of touchy areas such as God and religion, creation, individuality and communalism, energy and environmentalism, and the fundamental question of what it means to be human, I see why the critical response has been polarized. I commend the filmmakers for venturing into this hotbed.

Production-wise, as a big-budget film, it was nearly flawless: great casting and acting, unobtrusive cinematography, beautiful score, a better-than-functional plot, and dialog that was credible yet smoothly expository while developing the characters and moving the story forward. Some of choices to inject action into the film were a little over-the-top: exploding food; the FBI using artillery (really?); and the AI entity using spectacular, physical tactics to defend itself instead of using more nonviolent, covert manipulation and psych-ops to achieve its goals. And the zombie-apocalypse feel to some of the scenes were really beneath this project, but that's Hollywood...

I was surprised to see Elon Musk do a cameo in this film. He's actually very cautionary toward the development of AI, and has warned about its dangers, but this film ultimately seems to take a position in favor of it. The casting of Rebecca Hall as Evelyn, the wife of the lead scientist, was a brilliant choice. She's perfect in the role, although the character is a little behind the times, portraying a more subservient female to the male lead. Johnny Depp handled the lead seemingly with ease, although the choice of using that ambiguous, polygenetic European accent as an American scientist was kind of weird and somewhat distracting.

The film was pretty equitable with regard to the racial composition of the cast. Morgan Feeman had a substantial supporting role and another black actor, Cory Hardrict, played one of the terrorists -- not too many black extras in the background though, that I could see. Freeman's character was juxtaposed with some negative scenes, however, such as a terrorist attack and on a couple of occasions he delivered sad messages and gestures of condolence. And he opposed the protagonists throughout most of the story. But he also had dialog that delivered some good news at one point, so overall I guess it was racially progressive given current Hollywood standards.

The film has taken quite a few hits critically with regard to its technical accuracy, but most of those criticisms are not deserved and have been made in ignorance. Maybe I'll do another separate review here someday with spoilers explaining why many of the events depicted in this film are actually very possible and credible.

Overall, it's a great film -- easily an 8/10, and with its racial diversity I'll give it a rating of 9/10.

Rating 9/10; (submitted July 31, 2020, 5:35 p.m. EDT)

Posthumous (I) (2014)

A film showing how to develop a brand...

[6/10 · 29 July 2020]

Told within the setting of the subculture of the art world, this film uses the standard RomCom formula to unfold its story. All the elements of that well-defined genre are present in this film -- the only deviation from the normal course of development is the way the preexisting relationship ends.

This would have been a great, entertaining film if it where not for the fact that it was an entirely white cast. No black characters at all. Not one. Just a few seconds (literally seconds) of black background extras and most of them were partially obscured. If this were the 1950's that might be expected, but in the 21st century it's an inexcusable racial bias that totally ruined this film.

The film opens with the protagonist doing voice-over talking about bee colony collapse syndrome. Although the subject is referred to later on with respect to the male lead's art, I have no idea what bee colony collapse has to do with this film. It's obviously some kind of metaphor but I have no idea what it means -- perhaps something to do with the birds and the bees? In any case it was not made clear in the film, at least not to me.

One noticeable aspect about the relationship between the protagonists was how subtly manipulative they were. Both of them were deceitful towards each other, pretending to be something they weren't or pretending not to know what they did know in order to get what they wanted -- and each of them used subtle extortion to hook the other into the new relationship. And as these two were pulling each other's chain, a subplot about the underhanded development of the guy's art career was unfolding. I suppose it's fitting that the story is set in the art world, possibly the most pretentious subculture on the planet (second only to film critics, of course!).

Technically, the film was very good. The cinematography was great, the score was excellent, and the acting was pretty good. The dialogue was not as simple-minded as you find in a typical RomCom, and character/plot development was relatively smooth. The humor was not a laugh-out-loud type of humor, but more of a witty, entertaining type of humor. But that racial bias in the cast -- that really sunk the film. I would have given it a rating of 8, but because of the racial bias, it gets a 6.

Advisory: textual content ~180 wpm, racial bias in the composition of the cast.

Rating: 6/10, (submitted July 28, 2020, 9:30 p.m. EDT)

Movement and Location (2014)

Great script and brilliant performances from this science fiction-ish mystery...

[8/10 · 21 July 2020]

This is another one of those science fiction films that's not really a sci-fi. There are no spaceships, lasers, flashy CGI or goofy sound effects. It's just a drama with a science fiction premise. The main character, Kim (played by Bodine Boling), is obviously not from around here -- she's curious about the culture she finds herself in and is constantly practicing phrases and mannerisms to try to fit in. And she continually lies about who she is and what she's doing. But the stunning truth is eventually revealed.

A cast of relatively unknown actors and some very well-written dialogue make this film one of the most surprisingly realistic gems I've seen from independent producers. The score is so unobtrusive it's nearly imperceptible, yet perfectly sets the mood in each scene. And it's intensity matches the intensity of the scenes. The cinematography and the sets are prosaic, forcing the viewer to focus on the characters and dialog. The soft lighting and desaturated color in most of the scenes along with the bare sets and close camera work make the scenes seem more real. The filmmakers occasionally used hand-held shots (which I normally don't like) in some of the scenes throughout the film, but it was subtle and purposeful.

I didn't detect a single bad performance throughout this film. A real surprise was the young actor playing the teenage character Rachel (played by Catherine Missal). It's not often that you see a young person who is able to effectively present the depth of a character as she did in this film. Also, Bodine Boling who played the main character and wrote the story/screenplay turned in a brilliant performance.

There was only one black character in this small cast, who played Kim's coworker, Marcel (played by Haile Owusu). I didn't detect any racially derisive content, as is normally the case with big-budget, studio-produced films, however, the character was often opposing or thwarting the protagonists. Even so, Marcel seemed like a likable guy and overall the film didn't appear to be racist in any way.

As the story progresses, more and more secrets are revealed as a good mystery should do, and in the end the audience learns the truth about where Kim and the others actually came from, although there aren't a lot of details provided about that place or the circumstances surrounding their departure.

Overall, it's a well-written, well-produced film with a compelling story and without racist content, so I'm giving it a rating of 8/10.

Advisory: very light violence in a couple of scenes with a little bit of blood.

Rating 8/10.

War of the Worlds (2005 Video)

Great performances and terrible performances from an all-white cast...

[5/10 · 16 July 2020]

Another film adaptation of H. W. Wells' classic, this movie was one of *three* films released in 2005 under the same title. Very confusing. The same year that Tom Cruise starred in Steven Spielberg's blockbuster, this one, by Asylum, came out to try to take advantage of the publicity surrounding Spielberg's film. (The third "War of the Worlds" was a passion project of newbie producer/director Timothy Hines which was actually a half-decade in the making -- an interesting story that's actually beyond the scope of this review.) Since the title and the story is in the public domain, Asylum was able to use the exact same title/story as Spielberg's film, which resulted in enough confusion that this movie was very successful financially for Asylum.

Following the original story very closely (perhaps even more closely than Spielberg's film), this adaptation had some great score, good cinematography, and a few great acting performances, Unfortunately, there were some really bad performances by bit players that just sunk it. C. Thomas Howell played the main character, George Herbert, and did a fantastic job, along with his on-screen wife, played by Tinarie van Wyk Loots. It's too bad that Herbert's wife never gets any more screen time after the first few minutes of the film because Loots seemed like a competent actress and would have improved the film. She just disappears and the rest of the film is about her husband George. (Actually her severed head appears a little later in the film.)

Another great performance was turned in by Andrew Lauer, playing an Army sergeant, the best performance in the film, actually. Also, the actor who played George's brother Matt, Peter Greene had a challenging scene that he played very well. A surprise appearance was Juke Busey (credited in this film as William Busey), a character actor who's been in many high-profile science fiction films. He also turned in a good performance as an evil, psycho, renegade solder.

But what sunk the film were the bit parts. There were a few that happened at the alien crash site which, along with some really stupid dialogue, were among the worst performances on film. Then there was one bit actor who had the most phony southern accent -- it was embarrassing.

The score was really pretty good and the cinematography was good, too, although some scenes were too dark to follow the action, which may have been a problem in post, I'm not sure. And of course the story and plot were great simply because they followed the original so closely.

As far as the racial composition of the cast, it was an essentially an all-white film. (And mostly male.) There was one bit part at the very end of the film -- a black man got seven seconds of screen time and three words. There were a few Latino extras here and there, but none had speaking parts. That's it. Very white, but there was no explicit or subtle racial derision that I could detect beyond the composition of the cast.

Overall, this could have been a really great film if they would have cut the poor acting by the bit players and replaced it with scenes of George's wife throughout the story. Less gory violence would have been better, too. And a lot more color in the cast was needed. I would have given this a rating 6/10 if it had more people of color, but because of the all-white cast and the lousy acting by bit players, it gets a 5.

Triggers: gun/laser violence, graphic depiction of burn victims, wanton gun violence, military frigging, graphic depictions of mutilated corpses, gory violence

Rating 5/10; (submitted July 16, 2020, 12:20 a.m. EDT)

Stuck (IV) (2017)

It gets into some difficult issues, but...

[9/10 · 12 July 2020]

Maybe the producers of this thing should just write this review, because I have no idea how to handle this one.

This film is about race, class, gender, poverty, disability, homelessness, and much more. It's an ensemble character musical drama whose characters end up getting stuck on the the NY subway. That scenario is the backdrop for the interaction between this group of people who represent groups who would likely never come into such intimate contact with one another and end up discussing many deep philosophical and social subjects.

On the surface, the film seems to want to air some weighty issues about race, class and gender, and opine on the evils of our entrenched societal problems and perhaps do a little to help us get "unstuck". But in doing so, it also perpetuates some of the stereotypes it wants to disrupt.

For example, when the characters are introduced, a black character is shown in a disfunctional, interracial relationship -- biased filmmakers almost never show a happy interracial relationship, they usually depict them as having problems. I don't think these filmmakers were biased because the whole point of the film was to try to discuss these tough issues. But nevertheless, the black characters and the Latino character were depicted as poor, while the white characters and the Asian character were not. The people of color were shown exhibiting intentional racism, while the white people were shown as trying to be open and accepting, but still unconsciously or inadvertently expressing bias. There were many other comments or incidents that reinforced racial stereotypes (like mentioning or showing on several occasions that Latina immigrants "do the work that Americans won't do.") I don't know why filmmakers constantly depict Latino people as lower class -- a decade ago the richest person on Earth was a Latino man.

Production-wise, it was very well made. It was originally written as a stage play and it has that stage musical feel to it. It appeared to be a relatively low-budget film, but there wasn't a lot to spend money on since the players weren't $25-million-a-pop A-listers and most of the film took place in that one location on that stuck subway. The music was great, the cinematography was well done, and the direction, writing and dialogue was top notch. And all of the main actors were fantastic without exception.

One technique I liked was the way that the filmmakers presented the vignettes that the singers were singing about -- the lyrics gave part of the story while the visuals told the difficult parts. And the other characters responded as if they got the whole message, not just the words. Very innovative. These fine filmmakers create a piece of art that starts with a collection of people who represent predefined groups, but in the end we have six well-defined individuals whose lives may not be what you expect them to be.

I'm giving this film a rating of 9, which it well deserves, it's a great film. I don't think the writers/producers had any malign intent in the way the characters were stereotyped as they were, I think that's just the way the story played out and the way the writers went about making their point, although I'd like to see a film that subtly reverses the stereotypes and portrays people of color in upper-class positions while white people are portrayed in lower-class positions and depicted as subservient to black people -- now that would make an impact!

triggers: strobe effects; violent rape scene.

rating 9/10; (submitted July 12, 2020, 10:25 a.m EDT)

Fire in the Sky (1993)

Another UFO movie, with some serious racial issues...

[5/10 · 10 July 2020]

I thought this was just another B-movie when I started watching it. I knew very little about it other than it had some favorable reviews. I was surprised when James Garner appeared as a detective early in the film. With only a few exceptions, the acting was very good. The score and cinematography were also well done.

This film is about a specific, real-life, UFO hoax that happened in the 1970's, which was widely reported at the time. UFOs are kind of like Santa Claus and professional wrestling -- it's more fun if everybody plays along -- even if everybody knows it's not true. But sometimes folks get carried away, which is what happened in this incident as portrayed in this movie, which involved false police reports and the deployment of scores of people searching for a missing man.

Although the special effects of the flying saucer, inside and out, were well produced, there were a lot inconsistencies in this film that were distracting. The first one I noticed was at the beginning of the film when the pickup truck was driving wildly in the woods. At night time, driving in the middle of nowhere in the outskirts of a small, rural town, the truck turns onto a road and like magic a step van drives up just as the truck makes the turn, narrowly avoiding a collision. That extremely improbable event really pulled me out the film and it was completely unnecessary for the story. Later when the missing man, Travis Walton, is found, he is crouched, naked, soaking wet, up against a building and it is pouring down rain. He motions to his lips and another character says, "Water, water! Somebody get him some water!" (Later it's revealed that he hasn't eaten or drank anything in the last five days.) It's pouring down rain and he couldn't find any water?

Then when he's in the flying saucer, he breaks out of some kind of matrix-ish cocoon and finds that he is in zero-G. He floats around and the aliens eventually get to him and then drag him across the dirt floor of the spacecraft. Yeah, they walk along the floor and *drag* him in zero-G! Meanwhile there are all kinds of things floating around in that zero-G environment as he is being dragged across the floor. (FYI, you can't walk around and *drag* someone across the floor in zero-G, it's impossible. And the dirt would just float away.) Also, dirt floors? In an advanced spacecraft? And the aliens just happen to be able to breath the same atmosphere as humans do? Also, the instruments that the aliens were using looked like they were out of 19th century medicine. However, even with those goofy mistakes, the filmmakers were able to create a somewhat scary scene in the flying saucer.

One issue with the film was that there were no black characters in the film. I briefly saw one black woman extra in the church scene with about a hundred other white folks from town, but she only got a few seconds of screen time and during those moments she was either out of focus or partially obscured. But there were no speaking parts with black people. And generally, there was bias with other races, too. There was one Latino character, a reporter, who was constantly antagonistic towards the protagonists. Otherwise, the only other people of color were extras who were depicted negatively. There were some Latino men whose faces were not shown directly, who were depicted in a "bad guy" setting playing cards along with the most criminal-type character of the film, with a prostitute in the background while a person was speaking Spanish off-camera, swearing. They got 30 seconds of screen time. In another quick scene there were two Japanese men walking with cameras around their necks (a stereotype) and speaking Japanese. They got about seven seconds of screen time.

That's it. A very white cast and people of color depicted negatively. Also, toward the beginning of the film, one of the sheriff's deputies used the ethnic slur, "wetback" when talking to Garner's character, and nobody flinched. They just acted like it was okay to use that slur. That term was commonly used up until about the time of the civil rights movements in the 60s and probably continued to be used in rural areas in the 70s (when the real life UFO incident took place) but this film was released in the early 90s when the term was definitely in the epithet category, and it was not clear in this film that it was set in the 70s, so that slur was definitely inappropriate.

Overall, it was a well-produced movie that was ruined by racially biased casting and racial derision and stereotypes. I would have given it a rating of 8, but because of the racial bias, it gets a rating of 5.

triggers: strobe effects; text at >500 wpm; racially biased composition of the cast; racial derision and stereotypes; graphic torture by the aliens.

rating 5/10; (submitted July 10, 2020, 1:55 a.m. EDT)

The Last Scout (2017)

Half of a great movie...

[7/10 · 5 July 2020]

For a low budget movie, this film had great acting, an understandable plot, and believable dialogue -- for the first half of the film. The cinematography was very good considering the budget, except it was often way too dark, probably to hide the lousy sets. The score was pretty good, too. But those sets and props, wow, pretty bad. Clothes dryer vents hanging from the ceiling, and the crew was wearing 3M respirators freshly painted over with shiny spray paint and snow boots for their spacesuits. And the ship was held together with tapered wood screws!

Okay, they couldn't afford props. But as I said the acting was well above what you normally see in these cheap films. Plus there was actual character development -- the audience really got to know who those folks were on that spaceship. With real, natural dialogue.

But about midway through the film, it completely falls apart. It's like two different people wrote the first and second half of this film. It starts off as really great straight science fiction movie with a real, consistent plot and characters. Then halfway through, it turns into a snuff film. And the plot scenarios just kept getting more and more ridiculous -- one improbably situation after another. And in the second half of the film, none of the behaviours of the characters had any motivation or grounding in reality, whereas in the beginning, their actions were consistent with their characters and the situations they faced.

Another great thing about this film was that it was very progressive on race. This very small set of characters included a black man, and he had a romantic relationship with one of the (white) female astronauts. There wasn't any hint of derision or bias that I could detect. I'm adding a couple of points to my rating for this fair treatment of race.

My recommendation is to watch the first half of this film until they have the code orange. (It's explained in film -- it happens about half way through.) After that, just turn it off, and write your own ending. It has to be better than what they did to the second half of this film.

triggers: gory depictions of corpses; gory violence; gun (laser) violence

rating 7/10 (for the first half); (submitted July 5, 2020, 1:55 a.m. EDT)

Cat-Women of the Moon (1953)

A perfect specimen of 50s science fiction...

[10/10 · 2 July 2020]

I didn't give this film a rating of 10/10 because it's a great movie, it's a really bad movie, but that's what science fiction in the 50s was all about -- stilled dialogue; awkward exposition; a literal, plot-spoiling title; goofy sounding score; giant insect puppets; sexy women on extraterrestrial worlds; and every kind of science fact error possible. "Cat Women of the Moon" has it all, and then some. If you want to know what 50s science fiction was all about, just watch this perfect specimen of the genre.

The plot is typical. A group of astronauts take off in a pointy, single stage rocket and fly to another world (while experiencing normal gravity throughout the flight -- audiences and filmmakers didn't know about zero-G until after we started sending people into space in the early sixties). Along the way some hero disobeys orders to perform some dangerous, selfless deed in order to save the rest of the crew. When they get there they meet and interact with the inhabitants there, often sexy women and often far more advanced than earthlings, and then there's battle (often with gunpowder weapons) and guess who wins?

This one is particularly special because it includes something that was usually (and typically) part of another type of 50s science fiction that played out entirely on earth -- the radioactive giant insect movie. This one had a giant spider that attacked folks and was eventually shot to death with an astronaut's gunpowder pistol.

It also had something else that was unique for its time -- a woman astronaut! And she was smart, assertive and even took the lead and began issuing orders to the rest of the crew once they were on the moon. And the men followed her orders! You have to understand how things were for women in the 50s to fully appreciate how unique that was.

One more thing that was kind of special in this film -- it included teleportation. The Cat Women had a transporter device that allowed them to instantly disappear and reappear at another location. Although teleportation had appeared in fiction before, it only appeared a couple of times before this film, which was released nearly a decade before Star Trek made the transporter a household name.

But the real gems in this film were the awkward one liners. Here's a sample:

"Something's embedded in our rear section!" -- "We've never seen the dark side of the moon." -- "We have no use for men!" -- "I'll make a deal with you; you let me come aboard your rocket ship, and I'll show you the cave of gold." and many more...

Overall, this film is perfect for a person who wants to know about 50s science fiction and get the gist of the whole genre in one film. And it's funny as hell!

triggers: all white cast (duh, it was 1954); gun violence; animal cruelty (poor spider puppet!)

rating 10/10; (submitted July 1, 2020, 11:55 p.m. EDT)

The Shape of Water (2017)

"I'll bet you $100 you can't make a successful film that spans all of the major genres..."

[10/10 · 16 June 2020]

I don't know if Guillermo del Toro actually made this bet with someone or just challenged himself to do it. In either case the gamble paid off.

What does a filmmaker, a magician or anyone else who is the best of the best do to challenge themselves? If you can do something faster and better than anyone else, what's next? Well, let's see if you can do it while holding your breath underwater...

Along with all of the other wonder and fantastic accomplishments of this film, the goal of seamlessly spanning all possible genres was probably the most ambitious. While I was watching this film and noticed the genre-bending nature of the beast, I thought, "Is that what he's trying to do? Hit all of the possible genres?" Spy thriller, romance, campy comedy, horror, period drama and dozens more... My answer came later in the film when a character began to sing -- a musical -- bingo! Yep, that's what he's doing, he wants to hit all the genres. That, and a million others things that filmmakers try to do in their films: send a message, create art, evoke emotion, tell a story...

And he was successful at them all -- including the genre-spanning feat. I recently panned another film in a review here for mixing genres and styles because it was obvious that that other film did it by mistake. But I'm praising 'The Shape of Water' for spanning genres because it intended to. No one else has ever successfully done it before, not to this extent, but now del Toro has, with perfection.

If you've read my other reviews, you know that I normally try to give a critique of a film's racial inclusion and treatment, but I actually saw this film awhile ago and I honesty don't remember enough details to do that here. In any case, one of the messages of this film is that love has no boundaries, not of race, not even of species. I wish more movies included this type of message. We need it.

So what kind of film was this? Some see a comedy, some see a fantasy, others just see a monster movie. What are the contours of this genre? Well, it has none -- like all great art, it simply takes on the contours of the vessel it's poured into.

10/10 (submitted 15 June 2020)

Drop Zone (1994)

A great aviation action drama...

[7/10 · 12 June 2020]

It's always fun to watch these films focused around a particular subculture, in this case the subculture surrounding skydiving enthusiasts. And this one has plenty of action and stunts, many of them way over the top -- a prerequisite for any great action film. It reminded me of a typical James Bond film, without all the arrogance and bombastic dialogue.

The cinematography was spot on and the score was fantastic. The acting varied from great to mediocre -- about what you'd expect from a well-funded, major-studio, action-genre project. Wesley Snipes was great as the main character who was investigating the parachuting crime gang. Gary Busey (who played the bad guy) was a little over the top -- common for bad guys in this type of film. The dialogue was not forced and the editing was pretty good too, considering the difficulty of maintaining a smooth flow with all those incredible stunts.

The plot moved along at a good pace although it wasn't always credible, but that's par for an action movie -- if you're going to stretch credibility for all those stunts, who cares if the plot wanders from reality now and again? You're watching it for the action, not cerebral stimulation.

The violence was way too much, though. The plot could have been advanced and the characters developed without all that excessive violence. Less violence and less graphic, wanton violence would have made for a lighter feel for this film and been more consistent with its overall tone.

One thing I like about this film is the fair treatment for people of color. It was racially balanced with several black characters in the film, including the lead (Wesley Snipes), but it was not a "black film." (I don't like the way that producers arbitrarily segregate films into the category of "black film" for a black audience -- I thought we got rid of segregation back in the 60's). Also, the black characters were not relegated to playing subservient characters like waiters, porters or assistants -- they had substantial roles as protagonists. And they weren't forced to speak with substandard grammar and pronunciation as many filmmakers impose upon black characters.

Overall, if you like action films or movies about aviation, (and you can handle the wanton violence) this should be on your watch list.

Triggers: graphic wanton violence: guns, knives, hand-to-hand fighting, violence against women by the protagonist; some text (signage); airline disaster; drug crime and drug use

7/10 (submitted 12 June 2020, 4:50 p.m. EDT)

Beyond the Trek (2017)

A Star Trek clone with racial bias...

[3/10 · 10 June 2020]

Besides the title, "Beyond the Trek" which conflates this project with the Star Trek franchise, it includes a clone (Sunny Mabrey) of the character played by Alice Eve in "Star Trek Into Darkness." These knock-off films are known as "mockbusters" or as those in the business call them, "a drafting opportunity." They hope to exploit the massive promotion of the real film(s) to give theirs a boost. Even if only 1% of the huge audience looking for the real Star Trek film(s) mistakenly pick up this one, it can be enough to push these relatively low budget flicks into the black.

However, the film is not anywhere close to the quality of Star Trek films. The acting is uneven -- approximately the quality you'd expect to see in a soap opera if the players were given just one more take.

However, there is a tangible plot line, decent FX, and plenty of techno-speak to keep geeks entertained. The cinematography is pretty good, too. Unfortunately, there is the subtle racial bias that seems to be creeping into more and more films these days. The character who is the most sneaky is stereotypically played by an Asian women. Another character -- who appears angry all the time, commits the the most abhorrent act of violence, has intellectual impairment, and who draws the crew into making amoral decisions -- is played by a black man, which reinforces the racial stereotype of the stupid and angry black man committing crimes.

This film is hard science fiction with all the techno trimmings and would actually be an entertaining hour and half if were not for the bad acting and the racial bias.

Triggers: strobe effects, racial stereotypes, racial bias in the composition of the cast/characters, graphic violence, gun (laser) violence, amoral behavior by protagonists

3/10 (originally published 16 May 2020; resubmitted 10 June 2020)

Upside Down (I) (2012)

Suspend disbelief and it's entertaining...

[6/10 · 7 June 2020]

The story takes place in a fantasy world where the rules of physics work differently, so you know going into it that there are going to be a lot of inconsistencies in order to make the premise work, and that's ok -- you just suspend disbelief and enjoy this mostly well-told story.

Heavy foreshadowing at the beginning pretty much gives away the whole plot line of this simple tale, but it's fun to just experience all the various encounters that evolve from the premise. This is a movie that you can just relax and watch without requiring much of a cognitive load. Basically it's Romeo and Juliet with a message about social injustice in this weird fantasy world.

Cinematography and sets were wonderful -- definitely a visual spectacle. Acting and directing were competent and the writing adequate for what it is. The dialogue was passable, but the characters were fairly shallow and could have been more developed.

There were a couple of scenes though that were disturbing. In one scene the film transitions to a shot of a TV screen in which a journalist is reporting about the execution of three "down-world" thieves and they show the three bodies hanging from nooses. Then the movie immediately cuts to a shot of Albert (played by Blu Mankuma) watching the news report. Albert is the only black character in the entire movie (with very little screen time in the film) and the filmmakers decided to juxtaposition the reporting of the hanging/lynching with an image of that black character. Then later in the film again a transition to a shot of the TV, a journalist saying, "... police have launched a massive manhunt for the fugitive..." and again an immediate cut to the face of the black character Albert watching the TV report. This time the filmmakers chose to subtly associate crime with the black character. This subtle racism tarnished what would have otherwise been a fun movie to watch.

Overall, if you if don't mind suspending disbelief and you don't want to have to think very much to watch a movie, this is an easy hour and fifty minutes. (Just be prepared for a couple of quick, disturbing scenes.)

Triggers: subtle racism; depiction of urine/urination; gun violence; some blood

( rating .6 - submitted 20200607, 7 a.m. EDT )

I.Q. (1994)

g + S + b (gb / A) - S + b = he

[6/10 · 3 June 2020]

Yeah, that's the formula for a romcom (cis, straight) -- girl is with a schmuck; boy enters the equation; boy and girl get together but have an argument which divides them; the schmuck gets dumped; the boy comes back; Happy Ending

But it's just a plot formula, not a chemistry formula. Why? Because there's no chemistry in this movie, just cold fusion. Ryan and Robbins don't click in this flick. Of course Ryan is the queen of romcom, but I don't remember seeing Robbins in any other romcom. It's just not his thing.

But Robbins is great in this movie, as are the rest of the cast. Matthau is perfect as Einstein -- funny, adorable, quick witted. There are awkward moments though, like when he was on the boat making the couple get together -- it was like he was some kind of voyeur or something. Weird.

But the writing was great, plenty of innuendo and double entendras. There were several situations that were contrived and unrealistic, a prerequisite for any great romcom.

Unfortunately, there was bias in the composition of the cast with only one black person in the entire movie, a minor role as a server in a restaurant at the beginning of the movie, while all of the other characters in the movie (mainly intellectual types) were white.

Otherwise, it's well worth the time.

Triggers: Racial bias in composition of the cast; textual content >600 wpm (presentation visuals during the IQ test)

rating 6/10 (submitted 20200603 7:35 EDT, revised 20200606 5:00 EDT)

Cyber Bride (2019)

A Plot as Stale as The Bride of Frankenstein...

[3/10 · 2 June 2020]

This film popped up on a website as one of those "if you like that, you may like this" kind of promos (with an apparently primitive algorithm). It was highly rated so I watched it. Obviously that high rating was some kind of glitch, because now (after I've wasted an hour and a half of my life watching this film) I see that the movie rating has changed to 2.3 out of ten.

I don't know why the producers decided to make this film. The plot is as old and stale as Frankenstein and this film didn't add much to that story. The acting was spotty as best; the script/dialogue was atrocious; and the cinematography seemed to be struggling just to get the technicals right on the location shots. If the filmmakers were trying to make a campy film, they missed the mark by a long shot because the score and cinematography and some of the actors were attempting to play it straight. I think these guys were actually trying to make a serious movie here and failed.

The robots (who are obviously played by people actually pretending to be robots) have voices that sound mechanical and their responses are extremely limited, which makes no sense because even with today's technology, naturally sounding synthetic voices are common with a conversational range that can fool most people within certain domains (such as an automated call screener at a customer support line.) Also, there is no motivation provided for the robots' bad behavior. Even the Frankenstein story provided an explanation for why the creature was behaving badly, but not this film.

With a plot this thin, you'd think it'd be easy to maintain consistency, but there were lots of plot holes and the ending, although it was pretty easy to figure out, didn't match up with the preceding content. It looked as though the filmmakers changed their minds about the ending at the last minute and didn't bother to re-shoot the previous material to make it line up.

The score was pretty good though (that is, if they were attempting to make a serious movie). And a few of the acting performances were done well. Crazy Barry (Peter Cosgrove) stole the film, as others have noted. He was completely over the top, yet somehow made it work. (Looking over his bio, it seems that 'crazy guy'/'wild man' is his character type.) A few of the other players had their moments, too.

All in all, this movie is definitely a waste of time and not worth watching.

Triggers: gory violence; gory peudo-cannibalism; misogyny; animal cruelty; textual content at ~200 wpm

360 (2011)

Too many cooks spoil the broth...

[9/10 · 30 May 2020]

If you don't understand before you watch it, that this is an anthology film, you'll be bewildered and perhaps disappointed. It's a collection of short vignettes, each one making an impression of mood, and sometimes advancing the plot of one or more of the others. Actually the "plot" or "plots" are not meant to be the point of this film. In fact, a heavy plot would have gotten in the way of the dramatic performances; beautiful cinematography; lovely score; and tightly written, mood-setting dialogue.

Director Fernando Meireller and screenwriter Peter Morgan did an excellent job of efficiently setting the mood in each of the vignettes -- there is no extra padding where its not needed and they take the time to develop the mood when the scene requires it. And the acting is nearly flawless -- by the veterans and newcomers alike. Within the confines of these short scenes, they were able to project the genuine depth and complexity of their characters and the circumstances they found themselves in.

Hopkins has a range and depth like no other, but this was right in his sweet spot -- it doesn't get any better. And Jude Law was able to almost instantly convey the duality of a confident, competent businessman struggling in a vulnerable, unfamiliar situation. Astounding performances!

Connections between the vignettes are less about the common characters among them or story continuity, and more about a common theme. Each of these involve serendipity, opportunity, risk, and capricious decisions. Since sexual encounters frequently involve these elements (primarily illicit sex), most of the vignettes (but not all) include that theme.

As good as the film is, it's still missing something, some cohesion -- even for an anthology it's pretty loose. At least eight EP's were involved in the project, plus a few other co-producers, and many veteran actors. I can't help but to wonder if each of them were doled out a scene or vignette to put hands on.

Another issue I have with the film is the use of jump cuts. By 2015, when this movie was released, that technique had already become trite. I don't see why filmmakers feel a need to try to adopt these faddish techniques, like the jerk-zoom or shaky hand-held shots. These techniques are used by new-medium amateurs and then incumbent artists feel a need to compete, so they plop these into their films. It reminds me of the way that impressionist painters in the late 19th century began mis-framing their subjects because that's how they looked in the new medium of still photography. They felt threatened by that new medium and thought they had to adopt that effect in order to compete. Well that fad (mis-framing) didn't last long in painting (although it's still sometimes used in photography). In any case, incumbent filmmakers shouldn't feel they need to plop these effects into their projects just to try to compete with the newcomers. It makes their work look dated after a few years. In this film, the jump-cuts were inappropriately used in a way that made it look like the editors were just using the technique to try to get the best morsels of acting from multiple takes into the final cut. It wasn't worth it.

These are minor flaws, though, and overall this film is well worth the time, especially if you go into it knowing that it's a thematic, mood-setting anthology and not just a storyteller.

A Path in Time (2005 Video)

Good Hallmark-style Christian family movie...

[7/10 · 23 May 2020]

If you enjoy the Hallmark channel, you'll love this film. It's definitely TV-movie-quality and the style feels like something you'd see on the Hallmark channel. The editing and cinematography are pretty good -- only a couple of mistakes that will likely go unnoticed by viewers -- the lighting, camera angles, and continuity are spot on. The special effects are pretty good, too. As with nearly all movies that feature young actors, the acting is about the quality you'd expect from a TV movie. (Great acting takes talent AND experience, and it's rare to find great performances from young players unless they are surrounded by great A-level talent and directing, and even then it's rare.)

This is a religious movie, if you haven't figured that out already, with a Christian message. As with many Christian projects, the authors have favorite verses from the Bible that they want to talk about and this film is no different. In this one the passages they highlight are Romans 8:38-39 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15. (You can look them up -- not much of a spoiler if you do. It's your choice.) The story contains several metaphors which enhance its value, but the plot is simple (for a time-travel story) an there's no real back-story or other deep intricacies to the plot. As I said, it's a TV movie.

The ending is left open-ended as if the producers wanted to use this film as a pilot for a series or to leave room for a sequel. If you're bothered by movies that don't end with all the loose ends neatly tied up, be prepared for a sudden, unfinished story.

All in all, this is a great family movie that most people will enjoy, especially those whose religion is very important in their lives.

Triggers: strobe effects, text content at >200 wpm

Admins (2015)

Not funny. At all. Not a single laugh in the movie. None.

[1/10 · 22 May 2020]

With actual credited characters named "Mocha Skinned Guy in the Bathroom" (sic) and "Overweight Employee" it's no surprise that just about the entire script is composed of derisive dialogue -- toward people of color, women, gay people -- only men and a few chosen ethnicities were spared. Nearly every time that a person of color was given screen time, it was to use the character as the butt of jokes. I say "jokes", because there were lots of jokes in the film, but no humor. None. Zero. I never felt even the slightest urge to laugh, to giggle, chuckle or even smile. And yes, I got all of the jokes... they just weren't funny.

It's incredible that in 2015, someone actually thought that it was a good idea to go ahead with the production and release of this stodgy, bigoted script. I think the only one who would actually like this film would be a neo-Nazi or a Klansman.